Hi Guillaume, DWG, Thanks for the conclusion. I asked in a different email on this thread to post this on the OSMF web site, to have a permanent, immutable copy that we can refer to when it comes to enforcing / disputes.
I am a confused about the statement 'not following the organised editing guidelines isn’t an offence per se'. I am trying to make a connection with what you said in the October 2018 board meeting: 'The DWG is going to enforce [the guidelines] just as it enforces anything else which comes from community consensus'[1]. If the guidelines are going to be enforced, could you add some clarity to the decision making process? Who decides when non-compliance becomes an offense and on what criteria? How serious of an offense, or how many, would it take to be banned? Martijn [1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-10-18#Guidelines_contain_prescriptive_statements -- Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 08:31, Guillaume Rischard wrote: > The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised > Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines > > I'm happy to answer any questions here. In the meanwhile, here's my > updated report. > > We at DWG are, first of all, thankful for all the constructive input we > have received, from the advisory board, the humanitarian mapping > initiatives and the mapping community. > > The organised editing guidelines took a lot of work to prepare. We > received and integrated a lot of feedback to reflect consensus and > existing good practice. > > We looked at what similar policies would exist, on OSM or in other > organisations. I believe that no other project, open or proprietary, > has faced this exact issue before. On OSM, contributors generally > understand the current policies on automated edits and imports. We > wrote the organised editing guidelines in a similar way, while adopting > a slightly softer approach – not following the organised editing > guidelines isn’t an offence per se. Elsewhere, Wikipedia has numerous > policies some vaguely similar, but the problems they face are quite > different, and their policies tend to be a lot more complex. > > Internally, we looked back at past problematic edits. We carefully > wrote the guidelines and defined the scope to prevent those problems > without creating loopholes or negative incentives like encouraging > salami tactics. They are not meant to apply to community activities > like mapping parties between friends or making a presentation on OSM at > a local club, but only to ‘sizeable, substantial’ activities. We wanted > something that doesn’t scare casual events off while letting us > regulate a geography class gone berserk or a misguided volunteer > mapathon. > > We also didn’t want to set hard limits in stone since they would have > to go back to the Board constantly if we need to refine exactly what > falls under the guidelines. > > Humanitarian activities deserve our fullest support. We therefore > adapted the guidelines for them, both implicitly, by requiring only a > best-effort approach, and explicitly, by exempting emergencies from the > two-week discussion period. Some humanitarian edits have been > problematic before, and the guidelines are easy to follow; a blanket > exemption would send the wrong signal. > > We saw the amount of corporate good will at SotM, the tensions in the > community, and the (dis)organised edits that mappers have referred to > us. It is good for everyone that those guidelines are now online on the > wiki. Good actors, existing and new, will be able to trust clear > expectations. The community will be confident that this is the > consensus that will be respected. Confused newcomers will get a > blueprint for a successful organised edit. > > We wrote guidelines that are easy to read and follow and provide > clarity on how good organised edits should run without having a > chilling effect on them. > > I’m glad that this project is now concluded, and am convinced that it > will be a good thing both for OSM and for the OSM community. > > Guillaume > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk